RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive75
Null and void deletion of an article
Contrary to what was claimed, the article about BadEmpanada was not a puff piece, as it also included his disputes with streamers like Vaush and Kurzgesagt as well as this video, which details the accusations of antisemitism against him in regards to Israel. Not to mention, his Holodomor video was also cited, which was heavily scrutinized for supposed genocide denial. I also literally clarified that BadEmpanada having an article is beneficial for RW's missionality, due to his stance on Zionist propaganda, American exceptionalism, and Latin American history as well as his political disputes like his one with LonerBox on Israel-Palestine, which were all completely ignored in favor of personal biases. Plus, Vaush and Destiny have plenty of videos responding to BadEmpanada. If you want someone critically analyzing his claims, Aztlan Historian is a prime example.
Before you shut me down for having lost the debate, the points presented that stated how the article could have improved RW's missionality have been ignored and it met most of Plutocow's prerequisites for its existence, such as having a bunch of videos, citing other opposing videos, and Vaush's accounts that detail his supposed antisemitism. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- None of this matters, the article was fairly deleted by an AfD vote, which is the proper procedure and you don't get to try to overturn the outcome just because you don't like the reasoning of the delete voters. Unless you have an actual case, I would recommend swiftly archiving this. Plutocow (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then why did you ignore my points of the article meeting your prerequisites for its existence and not debunk my reasonings for why it could be beneficial for RW's missionality? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Random blogs and YouTube videos are not good sources. But regardless, none of this matters because this is not a moderation issue. Won't archive this because I'm involved, but someone else should. Plutocow (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- You guys seem incredibly inconsistent with your sourcing policies, as there are several articles with YouTube videos and Twitter posts cited as sources, such as those of Shaun and PragerU. Laci Green is another example of a YouTuber whose controversies are not included in her article (i.e. her disputes with Sargon of Akkad), save for a series of death threats. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is fucking archived, stop editing. You might want to read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? Plutocow (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- You guys seem incredibly inconsistent with your sourcing policies, as there are several articles with YouTube videos and Twitter posts cited as sources, such as those of Shaun and PragerU. Laci Green is another example of a YouTuber whose controversies are not included in her article (i.e. her disputes with Sargon of Akkad), save for a series of death threats. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Random blogs and YouTube videos are not good sources. But regardless, none of this matters because this is not a moderation issue. Won't archive this because I'm involved, but someone else should. Plutocow (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then why did you ignore my points of the article meeting your prerequisites for its existence and not debunk my reasonings for why it could be beneficial for RW's missionality? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The Krusty Krab
Uploaded a likely AI-generated audio file smearing a living person (that is currently at AfD), and also has a history of smearing living YouTubers. It's time to ask if this is really a good-faith user. Plutocow (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It could just be a case of "garbage info in, garbage info out". I'm not entirely sure if two incidents is enough to question good faith. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- At a bare minimum they need to stop instantly believing whatever some internet random tells them. Both MatPat and MrBeast seem to have a history of being at least mildly pro LGBT so it's not like it was impossible to figure out these were likely fake. Chillpilled (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted the file. Unattributed hate speech does not belong on RW. Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd support a 3 weeks block, but since this person is not here very often maybe this is not the right alternative. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- They're periodically active, so a vandal bin might be more effective. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- We should also remove their autopatrolled, I did it before but it was reinstated by Carthage for some reason. Plutocow (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- That would make them unable to respond here, by the way. Chillpilled (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I thought they had learned their lesson, as they hadn't made any bad faith edits, at least not in my eyes, for some time before I gave them autopatrolled. It was tiresome to constantly patrol the edits of a harmless, seemingly good faith user. Carthage (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is (or was as now deleted) the mess that was Essay:Why SpongeBob is Racist And Why You Should Be Concerned created by them back in August 2023. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am not happy that said AfD was opened/closed in the spece of 73 mins. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- We should also remove their autopatrolled, I did it before but it was reinstated by Carthage for some reason. Plutocow (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- They're periodically active, so a vandal bin might be more effective. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd support a 3 weeks block, but since this person is not here very often maybe this is not the right alternative. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted the file. Unattributed hate speech does not belong on RW. Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- At a bare minimum they need to stop instantly believing whatever some internet random tells them. Both MatPat and MrBeast seem to have a history of being at least mildly pro LGBT so it's not like it was impossible to figure out these were likely fake. Chillpilled (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Given the content, extreme hate speech with no attribution, and no copyright template, I stand by my decision to delete it on sight. Such rubbish uploads do not need a vote. Bongolian (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, am I right to assume here that said AfD was closed because Bongolian decided to nuke the thing off their own bat? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
block me permanently. im too gullible for this siteThe Krusty Krab (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- You are always welcome to LANCB. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also this says why matpat is transphobic. — Unsigned, by: The Krusty Krab / talk / contribs
- I think we can close this now. Krusty Krab LANCBed, was promoted by Plutocow, and vandal binned by me. Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Er that tumblr link soes not contain transphobia as far as I can tell. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The general gist I got from the Reddit mill is that apparently MatPat made a joke using some "'attack helicopter'" meme thing (which is seen as transphobic by some); MatPat apologized later. Matpat also apparently sometimes misgenders. The general gist I seem to get as well is that this by and large is seen as sins of stupidity / ignorance instead of actual transphobia. That's all I know, I have zero involvement in the Youtube scene, and Reddit gossip searches like this are generally only reliable (slightly) for taking the temperature of the social media mob. BobJohnson (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also this says why matpat is transphobic. — Unsigned, by: The Krusty Krab / talk / contribs
Minor change in CS
One thing we should do while we're at it is change the CS from "Artificial intelligence-generated images are completely banned from RationalWiki." to "Artificial intelligence-generated files are completely banned from RationalWiki." This will also ban AI-generated audio and videos, among other things. Since it's technically a change to CS it requires a vote here, but it's common sense and I expect it to be uncontroversial. Plutocow (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good change. But on second thought, it may be better to refine it a bit more, similarly to how text is treated. After all, if we write more about generative AI we'd probably want to provide some examples (like images with too many fingers and other signs of fakery, if we want to describe how to spot fakes etc.).
- So another possible wording could be: "Artificial intelligence-generated media files (images, audio, video, etc.) are likewise banned from RationalWiki – except if used to describe AI itself, give examples of fakes, etc." Otherwise it may grow stifling for skeptical purposes later. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. The word "likewise" refers to the previous CS paragraph about text. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. The Krusty Krab (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Voting on sanctions for The Krusty Krab
| This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: The Krusty Krab is banned for pi weeks, is sysoprevoked, and is topic banned from articles on Youtubers. |
|---|
Pi weeks banYay
Nay
GoatPi months banYayNay
Goat
PermabanYay
Nay
Goat
SysoprevokeYay
Nay
Goat
Topic ban from YouTubersYay
Nay
Goat |
Voting on proposed changes to CS
| This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Both changes pass unanimously. |
|---|
|
Reminder: changes to CS require a two-thirds supermajority to pass. Plutocow (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Ban all AI-generated files (instead of only banning images)Yay
NayGoat
Allow AI files to be used as an example of AI fakeryYay
NayGoat
|
Clarifying when it's acceptable to edit someone else's userpage
While we're on the subject of CS changes, we might want to clarify something that's been bothering me for a while. The CS isn't clear on what's allowed on userpages, only saying that there are "common-sense-exceptions", which we have an article explaining why this is simply not adequate. For example, on many wikis it's completely acceptable to remove redlinks from other people's userpages so they don't show up in Special:WantedPages, so they may consider it "common sense" to remove them even though here we generally don't mind. We have had a few disputes over what is considered "common sense" to remove from userpages, so it's probably best to outline when it is allowed or disallowed to edit someone else's userspace. Here are my suggestions, although feel free to debate them:
- Allowed:
- Removing spam, vandalism, plagiarism, and violations of interaction bans
- Removing categories meant for mainspace pages
- Fixing a page's formatting so it doesn't show up in any of the maintenance categories
- Adding
{{banned}}and{{deceased}}, when necessary
- Disallowed unless you have permission:
- Fixing spelling and grammar, as well as any formatting fixes not otherwise allowed
- Removing redlinks
- Gray area:
- Offensive content. While obvious trolling/vandalism should be removed, if you're unsure take it with the mob.
Plutocow (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I would consider common sense. And exactly the guidelines I've followed in the past. Spud (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Vote on clarifying CS rules on userspace (please read)
| This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Removing spam, vandalism, iban violations, and mainspace categories, fixing pages that are in maintenance categories, and adding the banned and deceased templates are allowed, spelling and grammar fixes as well as removing redlinks are not allowed without permission. |
|---|
|
Each of these votes has three options. "Explicitly allowed" means it will be listed in CS as an example of when it's acceptable to edit someone else's userspace, while "explicitly disallowed" means it will be mentioned as an example of when it isn't acceptable to edit someone else's userspace without permission. "Status quo" means it simply won't be mentioned either way. As this is a vote for a change to CS, a two-thirds supermajority is required for the "explicitly allowed" and "explicitly disallowed" options to pass; any vote that fails to reach a supermajority will default to "status quo". Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Removing spamExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoatRemoving vandalismExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoatRemoving plagiarismExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quo
GoatRemoving content that violates interaction bansExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quo
Goat
Removing categories meant for mainspace pagesExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoat
Fixing pages so they don't show up in maintenance categoriesExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoatAdding the banned and deceased templates when necessaryExplicitly allowed
Explicitly disallowedStatus quoGoatFixing spelling and grammar errorsExplicitly allowedExplicitly disallowed
Status quo
Goat
Formatting fixes not otherwise specifiedExplicitly allowedExplicitly disallowed
Status quo
GoatRemoving redlinksExplicitly allowedExplicitly disallowed
Status quoGoatRemoving offensive contentExplicitly allowedExplicitly disallowedStatus quo
Goat
|
Deceased and banned users at the RMF voter registration
I just checked RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation/Voter registration and I saw that there are some banned users, as well as at least two deceased users. I'd like to propose the removal of their names for obvious reasons: the first group could vote for users that aren't here in good faith, and the second can be used to rig the election if they get hacked or something. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Deceased:
- PsyGremlin
- Smerdis of Tlön
Banned:
- RobSmith
- Oxyaena
- Neiltyson1fan
- GR
- D
- Arisboch
- Kosterortiizbrock
- Hope I'm not missing anyone. Also, maybe I'm being too meticulous, but for historical reasons I think that we shouldn't simply remove them from the list. IMO either make a section of former voters or strikeout their names would be better since someone might wanna check which users are former voters. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- We might want to also do a bit of maintenance by making sure all the usernames are up to date as well. Plutocow (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the names should be stricken out but with an explanation in parentheses.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the names should be stricken out but with an explanation in parentheses.
- We might want to also do a bit of maintenance by making sure all the usernames are up to date as well. Plutocow (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hope I'm not missing anyone. Also, maybe I'm being too meticulous, but for historical reasons I think that we shouldn't simply remove them from the list. IMO either make a section of former voters or strikeout their names would be better since someone might wanna check which users are former voters. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Yep, it's good enough for me. Should we just implement it? I don't think we need a vote. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please. Spud (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do we need unanimous approval for this? Not sure if y'all are waiting on my input. CorruptUser 05:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure, but either way, I support the strike-outs and explanations. Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 05:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do we need unanimous approval for this? Not sure if y'all are waiting on my input. CorruptUser 05:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Ow, my eyes
(Not quite sure if this is the right place, but anyways…) You know how I've mentioned that if I still had sysop tools, I wouldn't be above deleting revisions that are literal eyesores and interfere with performing activities such as reviewing page history? The recent edits by Latinx7PalestinianVideos are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about — huge images imposed over articles and the site headers via <div> abuse that literally cover up the "previous edit" and "next edit" buttons (along with almost everything else, including the actual contents of the page) so that scrolling through the page history comes to a dead stop. Someone please get rid of that garbage. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- My viewing of the offending accounts records etc tell me that Bongolian blocked within 10 mins and I assume also reversed the vandalism. Is this a 'passive tone' request for a resumption of sysop tools? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily (that'd be nice, but I don't expect such a request to be granted after being in ATIM two months ago). I'm saying that such obstructive, eye-searing edits shouldn't even be kept in the fossil record, as they literally get in the way while clicking through past edits one-by-one, like a pop-up ad that completely covers a webpage you're trying to read. So, if anything, this is a request to revise our revision deletion policy. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Luigifan18 I went to the fossil record and clicked on the vandalized version of the page from yesterday. I was then able to click away again immediately. What the fuck are you complaining about? Spud (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- As a person has to actively go into the fossil record to see it, it could be said it's partly self-inflicted. And how many people trawl the edit histories anyway? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Spud Were you able to use a button on the page, or did you have to use the back button? --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- On a PC / Chrome browser, you cannot see the previous edit / next edit button... but you can click the "fossil record" tab. So a vandal doing div style abuse is no big deal. BobJohnson (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Luigifan18 I used the back button on my browser. It was super easy. Barely even an inconvenience. The vandalism was also rolled back easily enough. I also have to agree with KarmaPolice. Hardly any of our readers will want to go looking at older versions of a page and even fewer of those would want to click anything on an older version of a page. The idea of deleting that silly vandal's edits so that they're no longer in the fossil record is just giving them pointless attention that they don't warrant. Spud (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- On a PC / Chrome browser, you cannot see the previous edit / next edit button... but you can click the "fossil record" tab. So a vandal doing div style abuse is no big deal. BobJohnson (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Spud Were you able to use a button on the page, or did you have to use the back button? --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- As a person has to actively go into the fossil record to see it, it could be said it's partly self-inflicted. And how many people trawl the edit histories anyway? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Luigifan18 I went to the fossil record and clicked on the vandalized version of the page from yesterday. I was then able to click away again immediately. What the fuck are you complaining about? Spud (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily (that'd be nice, but I don't expect such a request to be granted after being in ATIM two months ago). I'm saying that such obstructive, eye-searing edits shouldn't even be kept in the fossil record, as they literally get in the way while clicking through past edits one-by-one, like a pop-up ad that completely covers a webpage you're trying to read. So, if anything, this is a request to revise our revision deletion policy. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Anatoly Karlin
So, there's this guy who came over on the Discord who turned out to be this guy, who had this to say. Thought I'd mention this, since there is only one mod on the Discord and he claims that he's no longer an alt-righter. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is there like a policy or precedent for this type of situation? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Have they verified their identity? Looking back, it seems GrammarCommie was the one who banned them and not Dysklyver as they claimed, though Dysk did accuse them of sockpuppeting (was this during the time that they were abusing checkuser?). There are no hits on the Chicken Coop, and the only ATIM case mentioning them is banning an alleged sock of them, so there's not much to go off of there. Did they provide evidence that they're no longer alt-right as a show of good faith? Plutocow (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the Wiki will gain anything by unbanning Anatoly Karlin. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see anything worthy of a ban in his edit history. The one thing worthy of a caution would be his single edit of the mainspace page about him. I would like to hear what @GrammarCommie has to say about the banning. A person should be allowed to provide verifiable evidence to us that anything about them on RW is incorrect. Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that he is no longer a Putin fanboy. Bongolian (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the Wiki will gain anything by unbanning Anatoly Karlin. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Have they verified their identity? Looking back, it seems GrammarCommie was the one who banned them and not Dysklyver as they claimed, though Dysk did accuse them of sockpuppeting (was this during the time that they were abusing checkuser?). There are no hits on the Chicken Coop, and the only ATIM case mentioning them is banning an alleged sock of them, so there's not much to go off of there. Did they provide evidence that they're no longer alt-right as a show of good faith? Plutocow (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Some BoN put this on my talkpage. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- This Karlin guy is still a eugenicist/far-right extremist and carnivore diet/keto troll. Only a few minutes ago on his Twitter he is defending Nathan Cofnas a far-right race realist who was just sacked from Emmanuel College [1]. Karlin associates heavily online with the far-right, he is not left-wing.
- His recent talk at Vitalia only 2 months ago cites Emil Kirkegaard and Bo Winegard two of his heroes. He's never moved on. He is currently heavily associated with Aporia Magazine and was recently interviewed by a white nationalist Alex Kaschuta [2] in which he claims to have converted to the "big gae" which is obviously a trolling attempt. Despite now claiming to be pro LGBT he still identifies as an eugenicist and is still a proponent of racialism which he lectures on. He's lost a lot of support on Twitter because people have worked out he is unstable and changes his contradictory views every 5 minutes. He's a self confessed glue sniffer so it's hard to take most of what he says seriously. He is still very much involved with the alt-right community despite his claims to the contrary. I have not looked into his ban here but it should be noted this guy has been blocked hundreds of times on Wikipedia. If there was socking here I doubt he was innocent but we seem to be talking about events from years ago. His agenda is probably to try and get back on his article to white-wash any criticisms of his far-right views. Johns (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you've convinced me. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there has been a recent grift by alt-right/far-right influencers who have come out and tried to deny their racist past and now claim to be left-wing in recent years. The most notable example of this is Richard Hanania. Karlin is close friends with Hanania and decided to copy his example. Another one that has tried this recently is Simon Webb. We all know the grift is nonsense because these influencers if you check their content and or social media it's still all the same far-right stuff they post. They also hang around with the same far-right followers like Bronze Age Pervert or Emil Kirkegaard so the claims about changing views are not genuine. They just try and re-package their eugenics or racism under a new name on their substack to try and pick up more followers. Even Richard Spencer came out last year and said he is no longer a white nationalist. It appears none of the far-right influencers want to use that term anymore. Johns (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, they're not even particularly convincing about their purported changes of heart. Glue sniffing and other inhalants are among the stupider drugs to do.[3][4][5] It makes me want to break into song! Oh, wait, The Ramones already did that.[6] Bongolian (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I remember that song. Glue sniffing used to be popular with skinheads and punks in London around 1982-1986, I remember seeing them. There is an interesting review here on the harmful effects of glue sniffing [7], neurological damage long-term. Karlin says he has been glue sniffing for a decade so he's probably gone mad. I think Karlin is trying to remove his name from the Aporia Magazine, or remove it from the lead on a couple of new accounts. It's probably worth watching these articles for a few days. Johns (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, they're not even particularly convincing about their purported changes of heart. Glue sniffing and other inhalants are among the stupider drugs to do.[3][4][5] It makes me want to break into song! Oh, wait, The Ramones already did that.[6] Bongolian (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there has been a recent grift by alt-right/far-right influencers who have come out and tried to deny their racist past and now claim to be left-wing in recent years. The most notable example of this is Richard Hanania. Karlin is close friends with Hanania and decided to copy his example. Another one that has tried this recently is Simon Webb. We all know the grift is nonsense because these influencers if you check their content and or social media it's still all the same far-right stuff they post. They also hang around with the same far-right followers like Bronze Age Pervert or Emil Kirkegaard so the claims about changing views are not genuine. They just try and re-package their eugenics or racism under a new name on their substack to try and pick up more followers. Even Richard Spencer came out last year and said he is no longer a white nationalist. It appears none of the far-right influencers want to use that term anymore. Johns (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you've convinced me. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- His recent talk at Vitalia only 2 months ago cites Emil Kirkegaard and Bo Winegard two of his heroes. He's never moved on. He is currently heavily associated with Aporia Magazine and was recently interviewed by a white nationalist Alex Kaschuta [2] in which he claims to have converted to the "big gae" which is obviously a trolling attempt. Despite now claiming to be pro LGBT he still identifies as an eugenicist and is still a proponent of racialism which he lectures on. He's lost a lot of support on Twitter because people have worked out he is unstable and changes his contradictory views every 5 minutes. He's a self confessed glue sniffer so it's hard to take most of what he says seriously. He is still very much involved with the alt-right community despite his claims to the contrary. I have not looked into his ban here but it should be noted this guy has been blocked hundreds of times on Wikipedia. If there was socking here I doubt he was innocent but we seem to be talking about events from years ago. His agenda is probably to try and get back on his article to white-wash any criticisms of his far-right views. Johns (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
He asked how things were progressing today and I posted a link to ATIM and this is his answer. I don't know what a Globohomo is and Johns is Oliver D. Smith, apparently. He has the pride and trans flag on his Discord profile and uses "it/it" as pronouns, if anyone cares. Oh and this guy showed up, saying that he also got banned for no reason and asked Anatoly to testify that it isn't one of his socks (wtf??). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- His claims are all false, and the fact he claims to have joined "globalhomo" shows us all that he is a troll. Firstly, the Oliver Smith conspiracy theory originated on Abd Lomax's blog. Karlin and Kirkegaard both copied it from there without checking the facts. Lomax is now deceased.
- Karlin has been banned many times on Wikipedia, just an example of one SPI [8]. He has had many more socks than that that have been blocked. He often uses Wikipedia to promote the carnivore diet and harass vegans and vegetarians. I see he has a "good hand" Wikipedia account that has not been blocked that he wants to keep. He says he doesn't support any particular diet, this is false. He supports the carnivore diet/keto diet/paleo diet for the last 10 years, telling people to eat more red meat [9]. He even has an entire webpage dedicated to the keto diet on his home website [10]. Here he is positively reviewing a paleo diet book for the neo-nazi UNZ Review [11] and he lists 9 paleo diet books on his website [12], all of these were written by quacks. As for Pintvonmilch this looks like just another sock, definitely not a new user [13]. The usual claims of impersonations and trolling have started appearing. We have had similar issues of this nonsensical drama in the past related to Kirkegaard or Lomax. The best thing to do would be to ignore Karlin and not play his game. Johns (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Karlin is trolling badly or off his rocker for saying he supports 'Globohomo' (globalization + homogenization): it's an alt-right slur (Alt-right glossary#Globohomo) that also insinuates antisemitism ('globalism') and the homosexual agenda ('homo'). I've unblocked User:Pintvonmilch for now. Sock of whom? Bongolian (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) I see the alleged sock "Pint_vonmilch", but it's external to RW, I guess, so I don't see the problem. Bongolian (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) The more informative link for Karlin's bans on WP is this one.[14] Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Karlin says he was banned from discord [15] but he no longer lives in Russia so he probably just created a new account. He has tonnes of socks. I do not know what to make of Pint_vonmilch. The users edits on Aporia were to remove mention of the magazine being far-right and removing Karlin from the lead, that is very specific editing. I suspected the account to be Karlin or someone associated with him. Nobody has really edited the article since I created it. It's odd a bunch of brand new accounts would turn up to remove Karlin from the article within 12 hours of Karlin messaging RationalWiki on discord. How could that not be suspicious? I think we are being trolled. It's also been suggested the other socks might be Mikemikev. It's impossible to know either way. It just looks like similar drama and impersonations we have had before on this website, I have never seen anything good come out of it. I would be very surprised if Pint_vonmilch turns out to be a legit editor but as they have been unblocked, I guess time will tell. Johns (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Karlin is trolling badly or off his rocker for saying he supports 'Globohomo' (globalization + homogenization): it's an alt-right slur (Alt-right glossary#Globohomo) that also insinuates antisemitism ('globalism') and the homosexual agenda ('homo'). I've unblocked User:Pintvonmilch for now. Sock of whom? Bongolian (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) I see the alleged sock "Pint_vonmilch", but it's external to RW, I guess, so I don't see the problem. Bongolian (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) The more informative link for Karlin's bans on WP is this one.[14] Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Close as moot since he socked? CDotSkelly (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Anatoly Karlin again
I received an email from Karlin today. In the interest of fairness, I am posting his email and opening up discussion again. Here is the body of the email:
Just noticed there is an email function here. So here's how this episode looks from my perspective:
(1) I do not use socks on RW and never have. But even if I did, why would I do that - with handles such as "Nooceleration" (my blog!) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Nooceleration that are an obvious dumb attempt to link them to me - to edit articles in the full knowledge that any such edits would be quickly reverted?
(2) Why would I choose Aporia as my edit target? I am not affiliated with Aporia. (I am inaccurately characterized as a WN within it, but I am inaccurately characterized throughout RW). I have no interest in editing Aporia beyond any other article on RW.
(3) Most importantly, why would I do this simultaneously with launching an appeal and basically guaranteeing it fails?
It's very obviously sabotage (ODS or possibly Mikemikev being the likeliest culprits). As an editor you are well aware that on Wikis anyone can pretend to be anybody. Many people were aware of the appeal, both here and on the Discord.
So what this looks like from my end is that you conspired to make it impossible for me to appeal the lies about me on my RW page by banning my account on false charges of sock puppeting back in 2019, and continue to keep it banned through this lame dog and pony show. Meanwhile, in the event I do create a second account, it will presumably be immediately banned as well for ban evasion.
Furthermore, you then seem to have decided to punish me for going through the standard appeal procedures in a conscientious and cooperative fashion by adding 7,000 more words of defamatory crap to my article (including implications of pedophilia from actual Neo-Nazi Colin Liddell).
So my modest questions are:
(1) I deny ever running sock puppets on RW (or Wikipedia). Is your position that I am lying and that you will confirm your decision to deny the unban appeal on this basis?
(2) If so, what are my actual remaining options to contest my RationalWiki article? (Knowing that any attempts to appeal the ban the official recommended way will be denied on the basis of sock puppeting claims, while creating a second account would be ban evasion and actual "sock puppeting").
(3) This is more idle curiosity than anything else, but even allowing that I was a White Nationalist in the mid to late 2010s - something I have consistently denied, and which very few people outside the Far Left ever described me as - on what basis do I have an article that is multiple times longer than, say, Richard B. Spencer? That is, the actual founder of the Alt Right (also domestic abuser, etc.), as opposed to someone who mentioned the n word a couple of times in ancient flame wars across millions of words of text on a blog of middling prominence? While it's not very funny to me personally, since RW's lies have substantively detracted from my quality of life, I have to admit it's very amusing from the side.
- Anatoly.
With regard to Aporia, there seems to be only statement that he would be writing for Aporia[16] and a small number of comments that he left on the site,[17] so I would support removing Karlin from the Aporia page at this point.
With regard to whether Karlin is a white nationalist, that is perhaps a bit grayer. The fact-checking site Polygraph.info, which we cited, did call him a white nationalist without elaborating on the label. A peer-reviewed paper, which we also cited,[18] called him an antisemite but did not call him a white nationalist but did refer to his association with white nationalist Richard Spencer. There is also the issue of what "Russian nationalism" means, which Karlin admits he supports. Russia is 80+% white according to Karlin,[19] so is Russian nationalism inherently white nationalism particularly when "Great Russians" (i.e., ethnic Russians) are the focus of Russian nationalism? The Wikipedia page on Russian nationalism
plausibly states that it has its roots white supremacy, but it is poorly cited.
As for socking, It could be the case that he hasn't done this since although there was a sock investigation on Wikipedia that banned a few socks, his main account is still active.[20]
We still have not heard from @GrammarCommie on the reason for the initial ban in 2019, but @Cosmikdebris also reblocked him today.[21]
As to the minor points: I did not add "7,000 more words of defamatory crap". I did add about 7000 characters, mostly cleaning up the page, especially citations. The page needs cleanup and there is substantial redundancy. Why is so much larger than Spencer's page? Perhaps there's more volume fo text to criticize. Bongolian (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with him that it doesn't make sense he would sabotage his own appeal with the sock accounts (unless it was some elaborate trolling attempt but seems like a contrived explanation). Since he was banned for alleged socking rather than bigotry, in principle I see no reason against appealing if his interest is to post on the talk page about himself. Admittedly I'm not the most familiar with his case, especially the thing about the Wikipedia side of it. Chillpilled (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:Akarlin sent me the following email earlier today:
FWIW, I was advised to raise my complaints about the appeal process on my user talk page on the Discord support server.
I suppose a thank you is in order for confirming that RW's appeals/contestation process, while present on paper, is in reality a farce. This confirmation might be plausibly useful at some point.
- —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I was forced to sit out the last round of this, which kinda stinks. Akarlin's last message on his talk page before he had his access to that revoked seemed polite enough (though it was almost identical to the e-mail Bongolian showed off here). I'd be tempted to suggest giving him self-talk page privileges back so he can actually try to make his case (I'm having my own problems with my Reddit account, so I'm feeling a bit extra-sympathetic to people facing bans), but I was watching the last ATIM conversation about how he's really not showing any actual reduction in alt-right activity, and having now seen the e-mail he sent to Cosmikdebris, I'm noticing the politeness slipping (I doubt calling the appeals process a "farce" will win any brownie points with any mod team), so I'm starting to wonder just how much benefit of the doubt he deserves. Like, I understand his frustration, but come on, does he think he's going to win friends with petty insults?! --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Here is some sourcing on Karlin's racism.
- Anatoly Karlin, a well known member of the Russian far right who has appeared at events alongside American white nationalist Richard Spencer
- Karlin is a similar figure who promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories and associates with alt-right political activist Richard Spencer
- Anatoly Karlin, formerly of Da Russophile and currently an antisemitic blogger for the alt-right-associated Unz Review.
- Anatoly Karlin (a Russian white nationalist)
- I am quite happy that few Blacks associate with Russia... So yes, I'm racist and very happy with that.
Don't play this guys game. His claims about having converted to a far-leftist are clearly a scam. Johns (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I think the insincerity angle was covered the last time around. I do thank you for finding supporting evidence, though. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I believe this account was Karlin [22]. Some of the other accounts read as Michael Coombs, those were obvious throwaway accounts with a very low intelligence. Johns (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are any claims on his page poorly sourced or unsourced? CorruptUser 06:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I believe this account was Karlin [22]. Some of the other accounts read as Michael Coombs, those were obvious throwaway accounts with a very low intelligence. Johns (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I also got an email;
Hi Karma Police,
I just noticed the email function at RW. The sock puppets were not mine. If I was going to use sock puppets, I would obviously not do that while appealing my original ban on sock puppeting charges.
I would certainly not do it under the name of my own blog, LMAO. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Nooceleration
It's a lame dog and pony show whose entire point seems to have been to give Bongolian et al. the pretext to deny my appeal.
So just to quickly respond to Johns who "convinced" you:
> Only a few minutes ago on his Twitter he is defending Nathan Cofnas a far-right race realist who was just sacked from Emmanuel College [1]
I defended Cofnas' free speech rights and in the next very next Tweet criticized his negative attitude towards Palestinian activist free speech rights: https://twitter.com/powerfultakes/status/1781640014805279061
I also support leftist free speech: https://twitter.com/powerfultakes/status/1779485268833148996
> He is currently heavily associated with Aporia Magazine...
How exactly? What position do I have there?
> Despite now claiming to be pro LGBT he still identifies as an eugenicist and is still a proponent of racialism which he lectures on.
I have always been pro-voluntary eugenics (and against coercive eugenics).
My actual current views on "racialism" (and other things) is described here: https://akarlin.com/soypill-manifesto/#Liberal_Race_Realism_and_Open_Borders_under_Rawlsianism
> He is still very much involved with the alt-right community despite his claims to the contrary.
This is why I make fun of rightoids near every day on Twitter.
Even several years ago my involvement with the Alt Right was marginal. Contra the lies on my page, I only ever met with Richard Spencer once (let alone attended "multiple" Neo-Nazi conferences with him or served as a "poster boy" for him).
> I have not looked into his ban here but it should be noted this guy has been blocked hundreds of times on Wikipedia.
That sock puppeting investigation Johns links to is not me. Anyone can pretend to be anybody on Wikis. I only have one Wikipedia account since 2009, User:SublimeWik.
I suspect that Johns is Oliver D. Smith, who has a well known obsession with me (by way of Emil Kirkegaard). https://akarlin.com/rationalwiki
And my 'open response' is this;
A Karlin;
The crux of my problem is that while I don't deny the possibility of a person's views changing over time, the issue appears to be your belief that all your prior history should be wiped clean immediately. Alas, this isn't true in either real life or here at RationalWiki. I will say this; if your change is genuine, and you stick with it, sooner or later someone at RW will note this and your mainspace page will change accordingly - it won't remove the earlier history, but it will note that you no longer publically support them. Johns convinced me of only one thing; that 'there has been a recent grift by alt-right/far-right influencers who have come out and tried to deny their racist past and now claim to be left-wing in recent years' [which I had vaguely noted before this] and due to your past history I think we're justified to be suspicious of claimed Damascene conversions.
I do accept you have a point about the sockpuppets. However, as I've recently seen people appeal against claims of sealioning by more sealioning I don't rule anything out. Your claim about Johns basically having a vendetta against you may or may not be true, but even if they're motivated by selfish reasons it doesn't mean the stuff they dig out is wrong. I will also highlight that Bonglian was the one who did point out earlier that you'd not actually done anything to warrant a ban - if they'd been trying to achieve this, it would be a little odd for them to effectively provide evidence against the case.
I am going to make the assumption here that your main reason for wanting a ban lifted is to edit your own page. I think I speak for most folks here to say at best this would be somewhat a conflict of interest. However, I will ask for someone to review the RW page on you and check if any claims made about your views don't have evidence to support it, as well as making sure various claims are dated so readers can come to their own conclusions to whether things from several years ago are still relevant.
Yours, KP.
Therefore, I suggest that we do roughly what we did after the City Journal hit-piece on us last year; that somebody [not me, I don't really know much about this topic] goes through the offending article and makes sure that every single claim is firmly backed up with decent, solid refs. Personally, I do think the page is a little on the long side when we consider their relative lack of notability - I mean, it appears some 90% of the refs are from their own stuff.
Now, on being a 'white nationalist'; well the issue is that Russian perspective is a bit different here - for example, 'Blacks' is often used [if I remember right] in connotation with people from the Caucasus. I would guess [from his positive mentioning of Solzhenitsyn] that Karlin's position would be as a 'slavophile'; which sometimes [but not always] shades into anti-semitism, pan-slavism [that Russia should rule all the slavs], autocracy and a general rejection of the Enlightenment. However, I will argue that it is not white nationalism because the more hardline slavophiles reject other 'whites' too, esp Germans, Scandanavians and Anglo-Saxons as 'aliens' - so it's more simple xenophobia and 'Russian exceptionalism'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- All this nutpicking about whether or not this individual is a "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" is complete bullshit. I did some internet searching and found literally pages and pages and pages linking Anatoly Karlin to white supremacy and/or white nationalism. If you sleep with white nationalists and white supremacists, then it's completely fair to say that you are one. This pointless bickering about semantics is one of the tactics of this abhorrent crowd, like how some of them say they they are "alt-center" and not "alt-right." Big fucking deal! "Oh I was one before but I'm not one now I refuted my beliefs" Yeah, right. The evidence isn't with you on that one, either. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... This is like the trollchild who came on here a few years back and said "Unblock me, It was my son that did it". —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have also come to the conclusion that he is not worth unbanning due to trolling and general bad-faith arguments. If anyone feels that a vote is needed, it can start tomorrow. Bongolian (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- As it's already been 24 hours, a vote can start now. Plutocow (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Above, Wikipedia and the question of Karlin's possible socks there was mentioned. There's a current discussion on Wikipedia about that, with Karlin denying all much like here, and some of his claims about his larger activity elsewhere being disproven, but no definite evidence of socking at present. Given the parallels, may be worth a read. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Cosmik; I think you're forgetting [or don't know] that hardline slavophilism is in itself an odious ideology which is fit for a RW page [puts on my to-do list] - it's the underpinning for Putin's regime and by extension the invasions [his line that Ukraine isn't real is right out of their playbook]. I just saw the spectre of 'anglosplaining' raising it's head - ie trying to shoehorn something to fit Anglo definitions - and wanted to make people aware of the differences. The point that 'if you hang about with racists and Nazis and don't complain, it's reasonable comment to say you are one' is what I would chalk up to be 'fair comment', though if I was writing that article and could be bothered to do research, I may also present the alternative theory that they're just a hardline slavophile and their Venn circle overlaps fairly well with said people. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Above, Wikipedia and the question of Karlin's possible socks there was mentioned. There's a current discussion on Wikipedia about that, with Karlin denying all much like here, and some of his claims about his larger activity elsewhere being disproven, but no definite evidence of socking at present. Given the parallels, may be worth a read. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- As it's already been 24 hours, a vote can start now. Plutocow (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have also come to the conclusion that he is not worth unbanning due to trolling and general bad-faith arguments. If anyone feels that a vote is needed, it can start tomorrow. Bongolian (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- All this nutpicking about whether or not this individual is a "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" is complete bullshit. I did some internet searching and found literally pages and pages and pages linking Anatoly Karlin to white supremacy and/or white nationalism. If you sleep with white nationalists and white supremacists, then it's completely fair to say that you are one. This pointless bickering about semantics is one of the tactics of this abhorrent crowd, like how some of them say they they are "alt-center" and not "alt-right." Big fucking deal! "Oh I was one before but I'm not one now I refuted my beliefs" Yeah, right. The evidence isn't with you on that one, either. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... This is like the trollchild who came on here a few years back and said "Unblock me, It was my son that did it". —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Vote on affirming Anatoly Karlins's ban once and for all
While it's obvious which way this site is leaning, Anatoly Karlin seems like the type to rules lawyer so it's probably for the best that we put this to a vote to make this official. This will be a simple two thirds majority vote to keep Anatoly Karlin permabanned. Plutocow (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
| This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: Akarlin remains permabanned by a vote of 11-2. |
|---|
Yay
Nay
Goat |
Rational Dude and unformatted citations
So @Rational Dude has been asked multiple times, including by myself, to properly format his citations. And yet he's still doing it (see here for the latest example). I myself have had to do his work for him several times (for examples see here and here, I've also had to replace paywalled links with archived versions and replace a goodreads link with a proper citation). It's honestly tiresome and dragging down the quality of our articles. What should be done about this? Carthage (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’m about ready to start rolling back and blocking over this myself. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 11:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Q1; is there actually a RW page to provide a ref/style guide for this kind of thing?
- Q2; is it mandated anywhere that a person adding new content must also make it all pretty too?
- Q3; is it inherently wrong to think that some folks contribution to RW might be by making citations pretty, proofreading etc?
- I will confess this; I have been guilty of leaving a welter of bare URLs on pages too. But you know what? I put a butt-load of effort into researching the topic, in producing content for the page, ensuring it's actually readable as a single article, locating as many decent refs I can and so on. I have tried in the past to pretty-fy refs etc, but 75% I end up doing it wrong. I hate to say it, but I suspect my talents with the codes etc are minimal and my skillsets are better served in producing actual content. After all, when building a house, the bricklayer needs the plasterer who needs the painter. You cannot complain about 'ugly refs' if the article in question doesn't exist, can you?
- I will again point out that there appears to be no RW policy regarding using paywalled links. Now, I personally think it's total BS [a paywalled link is about as 'accessable' a source as a text out of print for 25 years and the nearest copy is in a closed building 100 miles away] but I have been told in the past 'theoretical' access is good enough [something which I think betrays the academic ancestory of RW]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- To answer your first question, there is a section in the Manual of Style that addresses reference formatting. Given that this is RationalWiki, there is no mandate to follow these guidelines. The help article on references says that it is "bad practice to give a URL with no other information as a reference." And it is just plain lazy to stick a direct link to a paywalled site into an article without checking to see if the link has been captured by archive.is or archive.org. That's just my opinion. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've recently extended my grammar-checking activities into making references look a bit better, if that helps. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fixing this right now, I wasn't purposely trying to neglect my responsibility, I've just been rushing. Rational Dude (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I question the assumption/theory that it is 'your responsibility'. RW is not your employer, nor is it some kind of educational institution which demands submissions of work to pass a grade or something. And as Comsic points out, there is no mandate in RW for you to do it either. I suspect being blocked over this would end up being laughed out of the coop too [and totally unproductive to boot; I mean driving off productive editors because they don't conform exactly to your 'formatted citations' desires? Do you not see an issue with this?]
- Let's cut to the crux of the issue; Carthage and Duce feel that bare urls 'reduce quality' of mainspace articles. I can understand that it can be annoying to that kind of user as there is no automatic manner [to my knowledge] to sniff these out without manually looking at them page by page. Therefore, I suggest we get a new Category for RW's 'Articles requiring attention' - 'Articles requiring polishing' [or similar]. I am sure there are folks on RW who'd like to/are willing to do said polishing as 'their bit'.
- As for the paywalled refs; I do think we at RW really do need to have a discussion regarding what counts as a quotable source and what isn't. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you to KP for mentioning this, they're right that this isn't really something that's punishable with a block. I do think Duce and Carthage have a point that I have to clean up and format my references, However I don't think they should punish me with a block, since that's reserved for serious offenses. I'd much rather get another opportunity to fix any linked references that need formatting. Rational Dude (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The idea of blocking someone for badly formatted wiki markup is frankly hilarious. Nevertheless we should expect that people get things right after multiple requests.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you to KP for mentioning this, they're right that this isn't really something that's punishable with a block. I do think Duce and Carthage have a point that I have to clean up and format my references, However I don't think they should punish me with a block, since that's reserved for serious offenses. I'd much rather get another opportunity to fix any linked references that need formatting. Rational Dude (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fixing this right now, I wasn't purposely trying to neglect my responsibility, I've just been rushing. Rational Dude (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've recently extended my grammar-checking activities into making references look a bit better, if that helps. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- To answer your first question, there is a section in the Manual of Style that addresses reference formatting. Given that this is RationalWiki, there is no mandate to follow these guidelines. The help article on references says that it is "bad practice to give a URL with no other information as a reference." And it is just plain lazy to stick a direct link to a paywalled site into an article without checking to see if the link has been captured by archive.is or archive.org. That's just my opinion. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The only excuse for adding bare-ass-naked-URL citations is laziness. So, if you're doing it repeatedly, just cop to being lazy. That said, it's much worse to add bare-ass-naked-URL citations to silver or gold articles. These articles have mostly already had their citations cleaned up, so if you're doing it you're giving other people the work that you should be doing. Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Part of the reason I brought this forward was because I was tired of doing RD's formatting for him. Carthage (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I find the practice, not restricted to RD, annoying too. It's still better than no citation. Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage Which is why I fixed it. You don't have to do it for me, I can do it myself. Plus, there's bare urls on pages that I never added them too, like Anatoly Karlin's page. Rational Dude (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I find the practice, not restricted to RD, annoying too. It's still better than no citation. Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
So, any traction on my idea of having a 'Articles requiring polishing' category? Not just cleaning up URLs, but also better/more pics, better layout etc? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)